a right-wing FS9 loyalist.

 

Hey! I resemble that remark!

If arrogant developers want to work exclusively with FSX so be it.

 

Devs are where the money is. And when 70+ per cent of MSFS users are on the FSX/P3D side of things, it simply doesn't make sense to develop for FS9 anymore. Especially since everone wants to have their stuff as FSX-alike as possible (which isn't that easy, considering FS9's technical limitations).

 

Unless, of course, you want to shell out a lot more money for your add-ons because of miniscule demand. But no one wants to do that either...

Devs are where the money is. And when 70+ per cent of MSFS users are on the FSX/P3D side of things, it simply doesn't make sense to develop for FS9 anymore. Especially since everone wants to have their stuff as FSX-alike as possible (which isn't that easy, considering FS9's technical limitations).

 

Unless, of course, you want to shell out a lot more money for your add-ons because of miniscule demand. But no one wants to do that either...

You'd be surprised, many of us would pay extra for this very reason. We have respect for what it takes to bring products to the market and for that extra effort in getting the product to FS9 in this climate we'd be more than happy to pay a little more.

Before we get too carried away with throwing numbers around, this is from today and represents the usage of over 1,100 demographic poll takers.

 

For me, it all boils down to this single fact - FS9 is the only one of these two sims that I know with 100% guaruantee will stay up and running even if I do a 10 hour flight. The probability of FSX crashing on my system within 1 h is something like 40-50%. This is an experience I've had with the two-three other computer setups I've used since FSX. Yes, FSX usually looks better when it comes to ground textures but at FL350 that doesn't matter. What good does it do if it looks better and the airplanes have more systems depth, if I won't reach my destination - especially when I do most flights on VATSIM?

 

As I've said before, I love FSX for the low and slow flights - especially with ORBX sceneries. I'd prefer to use FSX for airliners also but since FS9 is almost as good as FSX but without the constant hazzle, I prefer flying instead of tweaking.

 

Edit: I must be slow today but I can't quite interpret that graph!

Edit: I must be slow today but I can't quite interpret that graph!

I was thinking the same thing...

You'd be surprised, many of us would pay extra for this very reason. We have respect for what it takes to bring products to the market and for that extra effort in getting the product to FS9 in this climate we'd be more than happy to pay a little more.

 

Let me do some simple math here... (I'm in a hurry)

 

From the demographic poll, we can see that there is a known amount of about 360

people who spend most of their sim-time (i.e. only counting the bars labeled "3" to "5") in FS9 (~240 + ~60 + ~60).

Versus over 900 for FSX.

 

If a third of the target demographic is interested in, and actually buying, a payware 787 shipping at $50 per piece, a developer, would receive $6000 (FS9) vs $15000 (FSX) in earnings.

 

Ideally, you wouldn't have to shove a percentage of these earnings off to a publisher and you'd do all the work on your own.

To flesh out all the systems and deliver a product that doesn't drive away any customers, you'll be busy for a year.

Which, taking the projected sales figures and monetary return into account, amounts to an effective monthly salary of $500 (FS9) and $1250 (FSX) respectively.

And this is considering full-time development with generous calculations...the actual reality might just be way worse.

 

So if you want to keep a FS9 developer from starving, you'd have to *at least* pay $75 per add-on, which again drives away customers.

 

 

There's a lot more to commercial add-on making than just this, but I hope anyone sees the trend here.

 

 

From the demographic poll, we can see that there is a known amount of about 360
people who spend most of their sim-time (i.e. only counting the bars labeled "3" to "5") in FS9 (~240 + ~60 + ~60).
Versus over 900 for FSX.

 

I agree with the premise that you have here, but it should be noted (not that this helps the FS9 vs FSX customer base issue) that the polling here only represents a portion of the FS community. I've been a member of AVSIM for years, in fact for 15 years (since 1998). Even so, I do not recall participating in the poll presented here. The relevance of my comment is to point out that I would be willing to wager that most quality 3rd party devs sell far more than only ~300 copies to FS9 users and ~ 900 for FSX users.

Eric Tomlin, on 22 May 2013 - 1:49 PM, said:

I agree with the premise that you have here, but it should be noted (not that this helps the FS9 vs FSX customer base issue) that the polling here only represents a portion of the FS community. I've been a member of AVSIM for years, in fact for 15 years (since 1998). Even so, I do not recall participating in the poll presented here. The relevance of my comment is to point out that I would be willing to wager that most quality 3rd party devs sell far more than only ~300 copies to FS9 users and ~ 900 for FSX users.

I'll add to this in saying these numbers are polled from Avsim users. I know for a fact on other sites like Flightsim.com you find way more FS9 users. In fact most of your FSX customer base seem to gravitate to Avsim. Going by what people post on other forums there seems to be far more FS9 users than any of us realize. Who knows though...

After looking at the poll results a while :blink: and reading the todays posts, especially these about the commercial considerations, I have to wonder:

1. I wonder why anybody develops for X-Plane. But there are developers who actually do a lot of new products for X-Plane....

2. FS2004 supersedes all sims except FSX as most used sim.

 

 

 

Sim life is good. :lol:

 

Yesterday I started my DF 727 and flew from EDDC to UGTB via LHBP. All the FS2004-related software did its job at its best. A lot (really a lot!) of AI planes at LHBP, from An-12, Il-62 and Tu-134 to the most contemporary types. Interesting wheather, many clouds between EDDC and LHBP. FPS never below 20, mostly around 40 or 50 or higher, sometimes in the 90ies. Sim life is really good!

 

(For me and for all the others who find such a satisfaction with their preferred sim.)

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

represents the usage of over 1,100 demographic poll takers.

 

Hi Tom.

 

Could it be that FS9 simmers are too busy flying than to participate in polls?  :rolleyes:

 

Edit: I must be slow today but I can't quite interpret that graph!

 

+1

There are so many factors to take into account when phrasing poll questions.

PhD’s are produced around the topic, and giant marketing firms make good money from interpreting their data.

 

What this poll says to me is that witches are known to be made of wood.

Wood floats.

Let’s tie her up and throw her in the river.

If she floats, she is wood, and must be burnt.

If she sinks, well…

 

Here’s something from AVSIM’s own library which to me is a good indicator of who’s out there, and removes the stated preference/revealed preference nonsense of a quickie poll:

 

Flight Simulator X - Scenery

Imperial War Museum, Duxford

John Young, Stephen Legg, ACG

Downloads:2567

 

Flight Simulator 2004 - Scenery

Imperial War Museum, Duxford

John Young, Stephen Legg, ACG 

Downloads:1969

 

I’ll easily live with that 60/40 split.

 

I hope developers will produce new stuff for all 3 major flightsims.

Some smart ones (Carenado, Aerosoft) have shown they are able to do this, and they deserve our support when they pay attention to FS9.

 

There may be less and less of it for FS9 as time goes on – but largely because it’s already out there.

As Harald mentions, there is a huge reservoir of stuff in FS9; I’ve had the sim for as long as it’s been around, and maybe gotten to 60% of what’s available.

Guys, you can dismiss, interpret, rearrange, ignore, manipulate, etc. the numbers as you like. Point of fact; over 1,100 folks have taken that survey to date, and the numbers are what they are. If you can dismiss the poll because you haven't taken it yet, so be it. Your vote is obviously not being counted. If it is because it is an "AVSIM survey" and not a __________.com survey that result in the numbers being skewed; okay, so be that too. Obviously everyone is going to have their own lenses to read the data through, and of course, you have the right to do exactly that.

Guys, you can dismiss, interpret, rearrange, ignore, manipulate, etc. the numbers as you like. Point of fact; over 1,100 folks have taken that survey to date, and the numbers are what they are. If you can dismiss the poll because you haven't taken it yet, so be it. Your vote is obviously not being counted. If it is because it is an "AVSIM survey" and not a __________.com survey that result in the numbers being skewed; okay, so be that too. Obviously everyone is going to have their own lenses to read the data through, and of course, you have the right to do exactly that.

man Tom, I have spent the past 30 minutes searching for __________.com but I am starting to think you just made it up  :lol: 

Actually, Google then asks if I want to search for Com.com which somehow redirects to CNET.   :Thinking:   :Silly: 

man Tom, I have spent the past 30 minutes searching for __________.com but I am starting to think you just made it up :lol:

It exists, really! It is a web site based in Lami, Fiji. Fiji, you know, north of New Zealand, west of Tonga, east of the New Hebrides... Lami, suburb of Suva.. You know, Suva, capital of Fiji on the island of Viti Levu. East of Nadi, the international airport for Fiji. Everybody does tube liner flights to there.